A Solution To Our Problem

[merchant]

Why are we sitting around scared to stick our necks out   while tree hugging hippies dictate why we can't build more nuke plants. We are all aware of the extreme lack of jobs I know I am. Because I do not have one. And the price of energy is ridiculous. If smart people like ourselves could get backing by any of the energy GIANTS with billions in anual revenue we could lobby our way into a much better position. Hey but thats just my two cents. Please respond I would like to see if this is feasable or not.

[alphadude]

maybe u should ask the present adminstration.  little known fact- the iraq war cost could equip every house in america with solar and decrease power consumption by 40%.  this would spawn a giant new industry- dont forget bush senior wrote OUT nuclear in his energy policy back in the 80s. that was the final nail in the coffin.  its not the so called hippies that are hiding under your bed- we have spotted the enemy and they is us!!!

Just the facts, ma'm.  J. Friday

[fluxmama]

But junior's administration made such a big push to get Yucca Mountain storage approved, nukies were real hopeful there for a while.......Then, of course, he wants to drill in the Alaska wildlife refuge.......and the prospect of war is driving gas prices up.....and part of the reason for the war is -let's face it- to secure oil supplies for the future.....
I don't think Washington is capable of a coherent energy policy.  Too many lobbyists for too many energy providers.  Nuclear has a place, but talk of dirty bombs and WMD will awaken that old fear of anything nuclear in the  American psyche.   You're right,  we need publicity and we need to be heard.  Ideas?

[moke]

Merchant,

It's inevidable since the feasibility of other power generating sources are no match. Wind Mill's, Solar, Fuel Cells & the like include too many variables. Some say that the ozone has been depleted by constituents such as CFC's, at the same time, what flies at an altitude of 25 to 35,000 feet? Aircraft killing the atmosphere yet many don blinders since air transportation is essential.

Bush has started the ball rolling. Westinghouse has a new reactor design the incorporates 70% less piping than the modern day beast.

See the LBL DOE site and search for the Biography of Glen Seaborg. He gives the best scientifical explanation of the subject matter.

I feel that industry must continue to get control of the situation and weed out the weak since the USA has the best human resources. You need public trust and mediocrity will continue to keep a damper on the situation.

Moke

[alphadude]

i guess the idea of a fully integrated energy policy approach is wasted in discussion here?  in time nuke will return, however, the propaganda of "to many variables" is like saying that horses are the best provider of transportation because they are safe and dependable.  anti-auto narrow minded individuals predicted that a massive fire would happen across the US if autos were allowed to be used with that dangerous gasoline. yes darkness is not good for solar, and the wind dont blow all the time, but the reason those technologies didnt take off is that they cant be controlled by major companies.  simple solar units and wind units do work and do lower energy consumption.  the problem is we are off the grid(heroin) and not mainlining money to the oil boys.  Nuke scared the piss outta oil, but guess who won? wake up! As long as oil is cheap, and it is, there will be no nukes, solar, wind, or fuel cells.

[alphadude]

moke u dont get halogens from aircraft.  halogens in fuels is a no no big time- damages the engines muy pronto.  the cfc damage today is results of halogens released almost 30 years ago.  most of the damage was from the big one WW2.  

also decentralized power-solar etc makes this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure.  dont get caught up in the brain washing of america.  

flux mama- yucca mt only has about 5 to 10 years capacity and that is already taken more or less.  the reason bush pushed it was that utilities were planning legal action against the US for not providing an endpoint for spent fuel which they are bound by law and the fact that the permit to generate was granted.  I agree we need nuke, its clean, not cheap, and easy.  (2 outa 3 aint bad)  however, dont ya think that if the big boys wanted it too, they would be doing a big publicity program and get us on the band wagon?  Bush is merely providing lip service to nukes. he is an oil man and so is his administation.  go figure

[SloGlo]

yes darkness is not good for solar, and the wind dont blow all the time, but the reason those technologies didnt take off is that they cant be controlled by major companies.  simple solar units and wind units do work and do lower energy consumption.  the problem is we are off the grid(heroin) and not mainlining money to the oil boys

the big boys will play with solar/wind/tidal turbine power as soon as it is economically viable to do  so.  current land prices to purchase land for wind generation price it out of range on a per kw issue. same with solar,  but solar is gaining effieciency thereby shrinking land (and also available lums needed) so the cost factor of that is tipping.  tidal turbine generation has the drawback of being all underwater and legalities of land ownership for this type of economic endeavor.  'n remember that the big oil boys are actively doing the r&d on h cell fuels... iffen it wuzn't gonna make them money, they wouldn't be playin with that, they'd just buy up the patents and copyrights and sit on them, like they've done in the past.
iffen this country would realize that we have developed the power the rest of the world is using in leiu of fossil and that it is the choice of generation for the immediate (~ century or so) until the other generation venues are viable, they would now only want nukes, they would demand them.

[alphadude]

ahhh the H cell, works with water (some types) and heres the kicker- the water has to be ultra pure.  other wise if u have any chlorine or salts u get toxic gas generation... want to know what the gasoline of the future is and priced just as high?  water.  no no no u cant use that ole tap water, or spring water.. he he he o wait a minute water is already as much as gasoline especially that nasty french water in the green bottle.  hmm no wonder our balls always feel like they are in a vice.  

[Phurst]

Now may be the time to pick up the nuke chant again. We have 20 years of solid safety and now we have high gas prices. Global warming is still a factor and is scaring a bunch of people. The hardest part is getting by the voting hysterical mother. She is the one vote politicians can't seem to live without. "What about the children? Won't somebody Pleeze think about the children!" One screaming voice worried about a nuke irradiating everybody and everything within a thousand miles silences every intelligent scientific voice. And the news loves them.

[alphadude]

phurst thats a nice cover story. has anyone everconsidered that nukes cost $$$$$$$$$. price anderson act allowed nukes to be built, but why are they not being built now? hmmmmm  the government picks up the rest of the tab. so, in fact, we have utilities on corporate welfare.  nice.  

look at the rest of the world- how many private utilities own nukes- maybe 0- is there some reason why they are run by the government in other places? hmmmmmmmm  FACE IT, we are a small, unimportant, faction that likes our megga buck pay checks, and the breath wasted here is just that- hot carbonacious discharge!! (a greenhouse gas- by the way)  NO UTILITY wants to have one built unless the government hands it to them on a silver platter or corporate welfare, then when the thing fails the govt gets the bill for thyroid removal.  Its nice to sit and debate why can't the world be a nicer place, but until those utilites decide that they want nukes- and are willing to accept the responsibility for mismanagement-we are wasting our time talking about it.  

[Phurst]

Thyroid removal??

[Rain Man]

As heartless as it may seem, let the country go through a tough winter with brown/black outs, or a tough summer with no AC and a lot of dissent will go down the tubes.  People are willing to bitch as long as it doesn't directly affect them.  Put on the heat (or cold as the case may be) and the tune you hear changes.  There may be a considerable amount of anti-nuke sentiment that drive the industry but when things get bad enough most people will hopefully get their heads screwed on straight.

[radgal]

Here Here Rainman. =D Nuke enery is still cheap anyway you look at it.  AEP spent billions to refurbish DC Cook cause they new they'd make the money back.  Cost is not soley on the gov't.

[bigstew]

alphadude, it's true Price-Anderson allowed nukes to be built but the only reason any 'alternative' energies are being developed and used is because of a 1.7c/kwhr federal energy credit for alternative energies. It's not because they're efficient.

Off the coast of Cape Cod developers want to use the credit to put 170, 270 foot tall wind towers covering 25 square miles of pristine waterways and fishing grounds to produce an average of 1 Meggawatt a piece for 170 Meg. And that's if nothing is down for maintenance. Oh, and I hope the birds using this migration path for the past 600 years know enough to get outtta the way of the giant cuisinarts. We could toss up 300 Meg of gas in a year on 20 acres. And no piles of feathers.

Does anybody really think busting atoms was/is the only way the early pioneers in this business saw us in 50 years ? We should be onto fusion and beyond by now. If not for whacky people and even whackier legislation we'd be there.The only way for an industrialized nation to provide safety and security for it's citizenry in the global marketplace is with baseload power plants. Solar is good for the small applications and should be pursued for it's possibilites as any potential source should be. But you ain't going to keep New York city lit up with wind towers and we can't keep burning coal and fighting wars over oil.
Know nukes, more nukes, better nukes. Whew!

[SloGlo]

karma up, bigstew!  i've always thought of fission as a necessary evil, until better came along.  but then again, i'm often in the minority,  a pleasant place to be!

[bigstew]

Gee, thanks, SloGlo. Positive karma an' all.

And truth be known, I've trusted an HP once or twice. Would you trust an ol' operator with a pipe wrench and a length of yellow sleeving just waltzing in a heat exchanger room for an 'inspection'? Probably not, eh?

Clean nukes are all we got right now for serious generation but I'd get a Vegas divorce from the grid if I could. Fuel cells? A good stream and a water turbine? A solar concentrator and batteries? I've considered and rejected the lot of 'em. I'll keep sending my C-note a month into the big boys for now to keep my fancy computers from crashing.

The larger question in this post is: how are we going to continue to power the world with futuristic technologies when we couldn't sell 'em on nukes? ANYthing that's outside the realm of conventional understanding will be rejected without a hard-sell by .gov. It ain't like our youngsters are getting an un-sullied view of our industry (read your teenagers textbooks sometime).  Future processes will fare no better.

Too bad we couldn't harness the power of all these hard drives.
Or the blasts of hot air from D.C.

[alphadude]

guys, i know that coal and oil is cheaper, with hydro being the cheapest. so when u say nuke is cheap, compared to what? how many hp's do they have in a coal plant? nuke is 4th on the list of 4.

as for alternate systems, wonder why the utilities lobbied to prevent solar homes from putting power on the grid?  each of us can do more to be less dependent.  one reason for living in the south...    we are a nation of wasters, and are the biggest energy hogs on the face of the earth.  so eat, drink, be merry.......

as for refurbish of old plants.. its like this, if its built already you dont have to re-do the impact statement, etc.  there is where your money is saved.  to build a new nuke is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ no matter how u look at it. besides no one in the US still has an N stamp for piping do they?  the horse is dead...

[Pet_Cow]

moke u dont get halogens from aircraft.  halogens in fuels is a no no big time- damages the engines muy pronto.  the cfc damage today is results of halogens released almost 30 years ago.  most of the damage was from the big one WW2.  

also decentralized power-solar etc makes this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure.  dont get caught up in the brain washing of america.  

flux mama- yucca mt only has about 5 to 10 years capacity and that is already taken more or less.  the reason bush pushed it was that utilities were planning legal action against the US for not providing an endpoint for spent fuel which they are bound by law and the fact that the permit to generate was granted.  I agree we need nuke, its clean, not cheap, and easy.  (2 outa 3 aint bad)  however, dont ya think that if the big boys wanted it too, they would be doing a big publicity program and get us on the band wagon?  Bush is merely providing lip service to nukes. he is an oil man and so is his administation.  go figure

Actually Halogens or ozone depleting chemicals are released on every space shuttle  flight. A good shuttle flight can knock out .25 per cent of the ozone layer. The irony of the situation is we use the shuttle to try to find out why the ozone layer is depleting.

I like hydrogen fuel idea- what a terrorist dream that would be. Can you say Ka-Boom!

[alphadude]

yea perchlorates are the solid fuel of choice for NASA,(SPACE CRAFT) lots of halogens there.  but none in jp4. and the shuttle is only at 25k feet for a second so i assume conventional aircraft is the topic of discussion. H2 fuels are produced locally in the fuel cell or stored in hydrides which limits the K F -B  ( Ka F**kin Boom)

[SloGlo]

last time i checked one of the biggie reasons that the 'lectric utilities were all lined up against solar homeowners pumping back onto the grid was the economics of installing the meters on the houses.... it was gonna be beholden to the companies for the cost to put the devices in place for joh q. to sell is uwattage.... not economically viable.  
iffen the original powers that be had decided to to a generic plant, we wouldn't have a lot of our problem.  they didn't as it was decided that it would be a corporate/country r&d in progress, so here we are with all these different designs.  now that there are two licensed plants, the real question is one that asks.... yinze big boyz with the cajones 'n nuke sited land; why ain't ya building?

[LaFeet]

A number of issues have been mentioned and possibly incorrectly stated.

 As to the number of hps utilized by an oil fired or coal fired plant, well there may or may not be any during the operation.  However, the concentration of the waste/byproducts does require hp support.  

 As to the utilities lobbying against solar/wind power homes, today most companies offer zero/low interest loans for homeowners to purchase these improvements.  The co-op that I am a member of will cover the loan and pay for any "extra" energy I produce.

 Every little bit helps, conservation is the key.  But since we are not an actual conservation type society, we must expand our power generation.  Otherwise California will no longer be able to cool their homes in the summer or use their tanning beds in the winter.

 Build more nukes !!!!  At least take a lesson from our navy and build proven, standardized designs.  Make them smaller and more plentiful.  

 Smaller nukes could be placed in many more areas that we could not install gigawatt plants.   Smaller nukes would increase the number of components built for production, thereby lowering component cost, increasing the work force and providing cheap electricity.

 Oil is not the issue where electricity is concerned, we can dance around that syringe.  

To coin a greek goddess - "Just Do It"

[azkidd]

Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth (Karma)  Having just attended an all hands meeting with our new CEO last week, this subject was brought up.  The CEO was asked of our Utilities plans of buying more Nukes.  His response was we are looking at one right now, but we have to factor in the age and cost of continued operation.  He said it was cheaper to build with new technology, than to buy into old technology.  He continued to comment on building new technology plants to say that right now, there is no financing due to reactors started, but not finished, budgets submitted, but not met (overbudget) and basically no plant in our utility has been able to meet their operating budget in years.  It is probably the same story around the nation.

[littlebittime]

alphadude I have a couple questions for you...and some comments

 

each of us can do more to be less dependent.  one reason for living in the south...  

Do you have a solar panel?  

(This section is just a pet peeve.. and all questions are rhetorical)
If "we can each do more to be less dependent"  why would those independent people using solar need to hook into the grid to sell their surplus?  
Why not just simply be the independent people they want to be... ummm... independent of the grid?  
And on the same note.. (this really burns me)
Why should corps. pay for their meters and buy their power?  They want to use solar... let them!  
Why is it the corps.  responsibility to "subsidize" it by buying their surplus?  What happened to free will?  This is a free country... you want to use solar power instead of the grid... have at it... but why should everyone else pay for it... isn't that "electrical welfare".
(ok back to our regularly scheduled rant)

Then there's the issue of who is less costly -  I suppose it's all in what numbers you want to crunch - so here are some I thought I'd share...
I found this at NEI.org -
"In 1999, production costs (   outlays for fuel and operations and maintenance   ) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.83 cents  per kilowatt-hour (KWH), lower than coal at 2.07 cents /kwh and still far lower  than oil-fired units  at 3.18 cents (kwh) and natural gas plants at 5.52 cents /kwh."
Ummm... look who's cheaper!  And raise your hand if you think the oil-fired plants outlays for fuel are gonna go up in the next year or so!
 
Oh and...
US nuclear power plants are operating at record levels of safety and reliability -  in 1999 generated an all time high of 728 billion kwh, providing 20 percent of the US electricity needs. (don't really have the time right now to spend looking for new stats - sorry... but if you need them I will get them)

Then there's the issue of stability... we NEED reliable stable baseload... wind, and solar can't do that - they are ok for supplements, but simply can't provide reliable baseload.    Nuclear power plants are in fact stabilizing the electrical grid and helping to avert brownouts and blackouts. And they are doing so economically and without emitting any pollutants into the atmosphere.  


And just so I don't leave windmills feeling neglected... they aren't suitable everywhere... in New England they run on average 25%-45% of the time and have HUGE maintenance costs - not to mention the vast footprint they leave in the landscape.... mountains don't look so hot without trees*.  In New England there are WINDS - top of Mt Washington in NH holds the record for highest winds on record -  but not steady blowing nice winds... no ... we have GUSTS which apparently aren't very good for windmills - breaks off blades... which leaves you with less of a wind mill and more of a big metal stick.  
  Oh and one more thing...you can check out the ones in Searsburg VT...  they were subsidized.


*- a big tourist draw for the New England states btw are the trees changing colors on the mountain ranges.... chop them down and replace them with windmills and see what it does to the economy of an already depressed state like Vermont.  A southern analogy would be Disney without the mouse.  Or Busch Gardens with no beer.

[Rain Man]

A few years ago the Pittsburgh Press ran series of articles on what had happened to nuclear power in this country.  In one of the series they interviewed utility CFOs about whether a new nuclear plant was in their future.  Not a one wanted to be the first........but they were lining up to be the second.

[alphadude]

As an owner of an off the grid property, yes i do have a solar cell(s) and they work pretty good.  for about $500 you can do a lot with light (24vdc) and other stuff.  Im looking to buy a wind turbine for about $1100 that will give me lots of kw and i use composting toilets (sunmar) that converts waste to a high nutrient usable product, but it only produces about 3 gallons of compost a year-however water use = 0.  As for HPs in coal plants? after 25 years in power production never seen one in all the coal plants ive been associated with.  some idiot did adjust the hopper level indicator-cs137- one time and gave himself 50mr.  OH yeah! this is sweet... your house meter spins backwards when u send to the grid... well the sangamos do anyway.  thou doth protest too loudly.. I do know we love those megga buck pay checks, anyway!!  

i know all this stuff, ive done the nuke lobby, nei support, etc.. the issue was- that a fully integrated energy policy is needed in the US.  Does anyone disagree with that?  (One day we will all have reactors in everyback yard. Duke Power VP -1973)  so what happened?